THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[egbert]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1iHkY4d ... re=related[/youtube]

[Coito ergo sum]

As the U.S. military campaign in Libya approaches the 60-day mark this Friday, six Republican senators wrote President Obama asking if he will comply with the War Powers Act, which says Congress must authorize action that lasts more than 60 days.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch

All those pesky rules only apply to Republican Presidents.

[Coito ergo sum]

Libya: British attack helicopters to be deployed
British attack helicopters will be deployed in Libya within days in a significant expansion of the military mission against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Libya.html

No attack on the UK, US or any other UN member - check
No imminent threat - check.
No weapons of mass destruction - check.
Non-Libyan forces killing civilians - check.
No UN approval except for no fly zone, arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban, and humanitarian assistance - check.

[Coito ergo sum]

Waves of NATO aircraft hit Tripoli on Tuesday in the most sustained bombardment of the Libyan capital since Western forces began air strikes in March. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... JP20110607

Tens of thousands take to the streets in protest....

...oh, wait..that's right...this isn't a war for oil, and it isn't empire building, and it's not oppressing the third world via western imperialism... this is a just, preemptive war to stop potential humanitarian issues, and prevent the possibility that Moammar Qadafi might start shooting at his citizens....while....Syrian military forces....fire ...on...its....citizens.....

[Coito ergo sum]

Stepping up a simmering constitutional conflict, House Speaker John A. Boehner warned President Obama on Tuesday that unless he gets authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification for committing troops to Libya by Friday. Sunday marks the 90th day since the president notified Congress that U.S. troops had been committed to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, which is designed to protect the rebels fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s government.

In a letter sent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Boehner, the top Republican in the constitutional chain of succession, said Mr. Obama must provide a clear justification for committing troops to Libya by Friday, which marks the 90th day since the president committed U.S. troops, and the clock started ticking under the War Powers Resolution.

“The Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter.

The White House has repeatedly said it has complied with the law by alerting Congress to the initial deployment, and by providing follow-up briefings about the pace and extent of U.S. troops’ commitment.

But the administration has never sought approval from Congress.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ine-libya/

[sandinista]

having a conversation with yourself coito?

[Coito ergo sum]

Posting news. Trying to spark conversation. Wars generated a lot more conversational heat in 2008. Ahh....the good old days...when wars without Congressional approval were "war crimes..." --- when choosing to bomb an oil rich Arab country would generate speculation of it being a "war for oil...".... ahhh...when the motives of those in power were not only questioned, but ASSUMED to be all nefarious.... what happened to those days sandy?

You must reflect on those days with a sense of melancholy, I suspect. Back then, your voice was among a large chorus, championing the truth against the warmongers that be.... now, you stand firm against the tide....only your voice is almost a solitary one... all the liberals, the Democrats, and the lib-dems, have all gone and switched sides...

Somehow, folks can present Libya as almost a moral imperative to get involved. Not only is it o.k. to get involved, but we MUST get involved, to "protect the people." No mention of Syria, of course. That's not a moral imperative, despite the fact that the government there has killed conservatively 10 times the civilians that Qadafi supposedly killed in Libya. And, no mention of the fact that far more civilians have been killed by "coalition forces" in the Libya bombings than were killed by Qadafi....

In the old days, that would have folks camped out in front of the Presidents house, descrying the lack of any "imminent threat" and shouting for war crimes tribunals and impeachments, while Moveon.org recommends treason charges against the generals waging the war.....today, a chorus of crickets chirp.

[sandinista]

You must reflect on those days with a sense of melancholy, I suspect. Back then, your voice was among a large chorus, championing the truth against the warmongers that be.... now, you stand firm against the tide....only your voice is almost a solitary one...

No sense of melancholy except for the victims of war. My voice, however, is far from solitary. What I am not clear about is...you are against these wars...but FOR invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems like you're pulling the same double standard you're criticizing others for.

[Coito ergo sum]

You must reflect on those days with a sense of melancholy, I suspect. Back then, your voice was among a large chorus, championing the truth against the warmongers that be.... now, you stand firm against the tide....only your voice is almost a solitary one...

No sense of melancholy except for the victims of war. My voice, however, is far from solitary. What I am not clear about is...you are against these wars...but FOR invading Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems like you're pulling the same double standard you're criticizing others for.

No no. I'm just identifying the hypocrisy.

I was in favor of Afghanistan, because of 9/11 and that's where Al Qaeta was, and the Taliban harbored them.

I was in favor of Iraq for the multitude of reasons much better summarized by Hitchens in his book the Long Short War, and also in various other debates on the subject.

I have no real opinion on Libya, other than Qadafi deserved to be blown the fuck up for the Lockerbie travesty. To me, he should go, and if it was achievable now, then so be it. Although, I do think the President needs to comply with the War Powers Act, and if he doesn't, then he is acting lawlessly REGARDLESS of the merits of the military action.

HOWEVER: what bothers me is all the band-wagon so-called liberals and Democrats who have stopped chirping about needing a Declaration of War, which they no longer care about. They aren't chirping even about the War Powers Act, etc. And, they used to say that humanitarian reasons were not enough to justify wars, but rather we needed an "imminent threat" to the US for the US to get involved - that's why the "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" argument had force with them - because unless he had attacked the US or participated in the attack, there was no justification for war.

So, now humanitarian reasons ARE enough to them to justify war. We don't need an imminent threat. So they consider a couple of hundred civilians dead to be a sufficient humanitarian "crisis" to justify military force, but they still steadfastly refuse to consider Saddam Hussein's killing of a 100,000 people a year as a sufficient humanitarian reason.... Saddam Hussein = not a humanitarian crisis. Qadafi = humanitarian crisis. There is only ONE way they can get to that conclusion, and that is by simply concluding that if Obama does it, it's o.k.

[sandinista]

if humanitarianism has anything, AT ALL to do with the west going to war all those troops would be in the Congo right now. None of the wars in the middle east have anything to do with humanitarianism. I agree though, people are blinded by obamas celebrity. Along with not wanting to admit the sad realization that (what was pointed out by most people on the "left" before the last presidential election) that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin. There are really no significant differences ideologically.

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON — The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Wow... just....wow...

[Seth]

WASHINGTON — The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Wow... just....wow...

Constitutional crisis and impeachable offense.

Ever since the War Powers Act was passed, presidents have been dancing around the conflict between executive authority as Commander in Chief and the power of Congress to declare war and control when our troops go to war.

Congress' primary power right now is to cut off funding for the hostilities.

[Coito ergo sum]

Kucinich credits Bush for asking Congress before going to war
By Bob Cusack - 06/16/11 08:04 AM ET
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Thursday ripped President Obama while giving credit to former President George W. Bush for asking Congress to authorize the war in Iraq.

The anti-war Democrat, criticizing Obama's handling of the conflict in Libya, noted that Bush formally consulted Congress on the Iraq war in 2002.

Silly Kucinich! Only Republicans have to ask Congress for anything....the motives of Democratic Presidents are too pure to be questioned...

Moreover, anyone who thinks the American media is in bed with the Republicans ought to think about how the media is handling this issue compared to how they would likely be handling it if Bush was President. How much criticism on any news station is Obama getting for this? Almost zero.

And would anyone in the Democrat camp be buying this doozy if the previous Prez said it?

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers went to court Wednesday to try to stop President Obama’s troop deployment to Libya, saying it violates the law, but the White House submitted a report to Congress arguing that it is adhering to the War Powers Resolution because it is not actually engaged in “hostilities.”

“U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof,” the administration said in a 32-page public report, which was sent to Congress along with a classified annex describing in more detail the rebels the U.S. is aiding.

Yeah right - we're flying sorties and bombing people, we have drones going in and out bombing people, and apparently US special forces are on the ground in Libya too. http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/03/24/20 ... le-in.html Yes yes - no hostilities at all...move along people...nothing to see here....move along...

[Coito ergo sum]

And....now to those that STARTED the whole mess in the first place, the "moral imperative" is not so, well....imperative after all....

Only eight of the 28 NATO states have provided planes for strike missions in Libya and pressure by Gates on others with available resources to do so, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey and Germany, appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
Already Norway has announced it will have to scale back its contribution of strike aircraft this month and end their role in August, while European NATO stalwart Britain has said continuing the mission beyond September could be a challenge that could require diversion of resources from elsewhere.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/analysis-nato- ... 52889.html

Gotta love the gambit....guilt the US into the fight in the first place, saying "how can the US ignore this..." and then once the US is sucked in and committed....start sloooowwwly backing out....knowing that the US will have to pick up the slack or the mission will fail and who will get the blame? Norway? Spain? No, of course not...the US will get the blame. Fuck, so now the NATO allies are "running short on munitions..." - well fucking bite the bullet and make some more - this was their moral imperative after all....

[Coito ergo sum]

President Obama declared last week that the three-month-old Libyan campaign should not be considered “hostilities.” That word is important, because it’s used in the 1973 War Powers Resolution: Presidents must obtain congressional authorization within a certain period after sending U.S. forces “into hostilities.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html